Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fowlers Hollow Run

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. Non-admin closure. Jfire (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fowlers Hollow Run

Fowlers Hollow Run (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable river with no references or citations to assert notability. Bstone (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Withdrawn. Sorry. Bstone (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Perhaps the gun has been jumped on this. It looks like someone is working to expand it. Plunketts Creek is another very small stream that has reached FA status. And a PA state park is named for it. Seems notable Dincher (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I confirmed the existence of Fowler Hollow Run at GNIS. Landforms such as rivers seem to fall into the category of things that are automatically notable. Another editor has added a Pennsylvania state government reference to the article. --Eastmain (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I've expanded the article a bit and there's plenty of room for more. Most geographical features are inherently notable. Pburka (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep would be notable even without a state park named for it (Fowlers Hollow State Park), I also plan to add some to it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This is yet another example of why its disruptive to nominate an article for deletion so soon after its creation (less than five hours in this case!). Such quick deletion attempts should be reserved for only blatant vandalism, nonsense or spam. --Oakshade (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The nomination for deletion has been withdrawn. See above. So what is next? Dincher (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.